Worldwide Islamic opinion, Singapore style
During a taxi ride last week I was talking to the driver about the APEC conference, which was held in Singapore this month, to much local ballyhoo. He asked where I was from, and when he found out that I’m American he said, “You know what one thing I’d really like the U.S. to do in foreign policy?”
I’m thinking: “Get out of Afghanistan? Iraq? nuclear issues in Pakistan and India? political prisoners in Myanmar? Devalue the U.S. dollar?” – all issues with an Asian slant, if you see what I mean.
He said, “Give the Palestinians their own state.”
I glance at his I.D., and yes, his first name is Mohammed. So I asked how the U.S. could do that unless both the Palestinians and Israelis are willing to play ball. Maybe the U.S. should cut off funds to Israel if they keep building settlements in Gaza? I was getting ready for a certain heatedness of discussion, complete with blame games as played in the U.S. media, and was trying to rally my scattered knowledge of the peace process over the last 30 years, when he replied,
“Just support the U.N. When the whole U.N. agrees on something against Israel, don’t go against the U.N. Help them sort it out.”
You could have knocked me over with a feather. First was my astonishment that, with all the issues closer to home he could have chosen as an Asian muslim, he should be concerned with Palestine – OK, probably all the imams worldwide have agreed to focus on this issue to the exclusion of the hairier problems of inequality, bad schooling, poverty, women’s rights, etc. at home. But secondly, I was completely touched by his faith in the powers of the U.N. I don’t think I’m exaggerating by much when I say that Americans by and large don’t take the U.N. terribly seriously as a policy instrument. But this man appeared to think that it could actually do something positive in the Middle East – a novel idea!
And perhaps typically Singaporean on two levels: One, a very small country doesn’t think of foreign policy in terms of throwing its weight around. It finds partners and participates in coalitions, and has to trust them. Two, Islam in Singapore is by government fiat a moderate version; all religious speech from the pulpit, Christian included, is monitored, and preachers who try to instigate hate, racism, or potentially divisive policies (like anti-gay ones) are brought into line. The Singapore government does not hold that the right to free speech trumps the value of civic cohesiveness. And I have to say, I agree.
The trick is, of course, who is to be the judge of what sort of speech is divisive and hateful. Aside from me, of course.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Very interesting conversation! i didn’t guess what the taxi driver would say, either.
In lunch conversations, I have heard quite a few US friends saying one of the reasons they support Israel against Palestine as “the Palestinians kept defying UN resolutions”. Others at the lunch table — mostly immigrants from various countries — all responded in surprise “you must mean Israel?” My impression is that a good portion of the US population thinks of UN as just an agent of the US, thus inferring that UN resolutions are all aligned with US preference. They are surprised that UN occasionally makes up its own mind …
I concur with you about the trade-off between free speech and social harmony. I would have no problem having you being the judge of acceptible speech
December 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Hmm, coming back to this post today, and found that my comment didn’t really come out the right way, did it? Please kindly delete my comment above … I didn’t mean to imply that Americans don’t know what UN does! The wording seems unfriendly upon second reading, and it’s not what i intended!
Peace
December 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I don’t think it sounds unfriendly. I hesitate to delete it, as later in the comment you implicitly endorse me for the position of ultimate free speech arbitrator! How often do I get that kind of support?